Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is The GE 90-115B Still The Most Powerful?  
User currently offlineNitepilot79 From Turkey, joined May 2008, 269 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 6 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 15790 times:

Is the GE 90-115B turbofan still the most powerful airliner engine? How do the RR and Pratt and Whitney models compare?


En Buyuk Turkiye, Baska Buyuk Yok!
32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 1, posted (5 years 6 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 15758 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Yes. but a good bit.

I believe the most powerful commercial Pratt's and Rollers are in the mid-90k range.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (5 years 6 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 15605 times:

And they will be for some time, as the A350-1000 is not spec'd out for engines more powerful than the current crop of mid-90s.

It will be Y3, if it ever comes, that may have more powerful engines.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offline2707200X From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 8526 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (5 years 6 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 15274 times:

I think GE will provide the engines for the Y3 as they have experience building the biggest jet engines in the world.


"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5824 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (5 years 6 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 15264 times:



Quoting 2707200X (Reply 3):
I think GE will provide the engines for the Y3 as they have experience building the biggest jet engines in the world.

Don't bet the farm.
While the GE-90-115 is generally a good engine, they're losing gearboxes left and right. At one point, there was discussion (here on a.net, anyway) that AF was in jeopardy of losing their ETOPS rating with the bird, due to the number of inflight shutdowns being too high.

Now, don't get me wrong... I don't think the engine/aircraft are dangerous. But, there's nothing preventing Rolls from stepping in and offering a competitor. At least with Airbus... I think Boeing gave GE an exclusivity contract for engines above 100k.

I don't expect Pratt to show up at the party, just as they didn't even propose a development for the 777-3ER.


User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (5 years 6 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 14968 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):

It will be Y3, if it ever comes, that may have more powerful engines.

It might, It might not. I doubt there will ever be a change from twin to single engine, so thrust requirement will always be based on a twin requirement.

That said, my opinion is that the Y-3, if Boeing ever designed one to replace the -300ER, will focus on lighter airframe, more efficient engine and better aerodynamics. My guess is that the MTOW will hover at around 770klbs (773ER), with better fuel economics and lighter airframe to carry more payload.

Cheers,
PP



One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offlineCFMTurboFan From Canada, joined May 2007, 41 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 6 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 14894 times:



Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 4):
Don't bet the farm.
While the GE-90-115 is generally a good engine, they're losing gearboxes left and right. At one point, there was discussion (here on a.net, anyway) that AF was in jeopardy of losing their ETOPS rating with the bird, due to the number of inflight shutdowns being too high.

I don't think they are losing them left and right. Yes, they are requiring more maintenance at the moment, but these can changed out on wing before they become too much of a liability. GE is working hard to maintain the current fleet and to implement fixes in the near future.

CFM Turbo Fan


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3526 posts, RR: 66
Reply 7, posted (5 years 6 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 14799 times:



Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 4):
While the GE-90-115 is generally a good engine, they're losing gearboxes left and right. At one point, there was discussion (here on a.net, anyway) that AF was in jeopardy of losing their ETOPS rating with the bird, due to the number of inflight shutdowns being too high.

The latest report I've seen was through the end of 3Q '08.

Based on an average for the prior year, the GE90-115B total (all phases of flight) IFSD rate was .005 per 1000 engine hours.

That rate is 25% of the rate required for 180/207 min ETOPS and 50% of the rate required for ETOPS beyond 180/207 min.

While the gear box issue should to be corrected, ETOPS for the 777/GE90-115B is not at risk.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 8, posted (5 years 6 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 14673 times:



Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 4):
While the GE-90-115 is generally a good engine, they're losing gearboxes left and right.

What are the snags?
regds
MEL.



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5824 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (5 years 6 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 14620 times:



Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 7):
While the gear box issue should to be corrected, ETOPS for the 777/GE90-115B is not at risk.

Good!

Quoting CFMTurboFan (Reply 6):
I don't think they are losing them left and right. Yes, they are requiring more maintenance at the moment, but these can changed out on wing before they become too much of a liability. GE is working hard to maintain the current fleet and to implement fixes in the near future.

Pardon the hyperbole, but they are happening too frequently. I believe Air France has lost two, Singapore has lost at least one, Air Canada dropped one in here a few weeks ago...
And, they sometimes require engine replacement. The Air Canada bird C-FRAM had to have a new engine. At least, that's what I was told; bummer, to, because it took a very long time to truck one up from Seattle on the Al-Can highway!


User currently offlineDispatchguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1249 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (5 years 6 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 14568 times:



Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 5):
I doubt there will ever be a change from twin to single engine

Under FAR 121, single-engine aircraft are not allowed, so there will always be a requirement for a twin engine aircraft.



Nobody screws you better than an airline job!
User currently offlineImiakhtar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (5 years 6 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 14555 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 4):
But, there's nothing preventing Rolls from stepping in and offering a competitor.

Agreed. When RR began testing the current Trent 800 in '94, it reliably achieved 107 klb  Wow!
This was a long time before RR developed the 8104 and almost a decade before the GE90-115 came on the scene.


Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 9):
Pardon the hyperbole, but they are happening too frequently. I believe Air France has lost two, Singapore has lost at least one, Air Canada dropped one in here a few weeks ago...

I seem to recall a ME carrier, either Emirates or Etihad also having issues with the GE90-115 when it entered service, resulting in multiple engine changes.

Regards

[Edited 2009-03-25 09:26:54]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 12, posted (5 years 6 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 14480 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 4):
I think Boeing gave GE an exclusivity contract for engines above 100k.

It's actually based on MTOW and the baseline is around 300t, which is pretty much only the 77F, the 77L and the 77W.



Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 9):
Pardon the hyperbole, but they are happening too frequently.

Not on a statistical basis, which is what matters. Considering how many GE90s a day are performing missions without incidents in SQ's, AF's and AC's fleet. And then consider how many more are performing missions without incidents in the rest of the world's fleet.

There are some 400 GE90-11xB engines in operation every day and yet there have been but a handful of IFSs over a period of months.


User currently offlineLowbank From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2009, 80 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (5 years 6 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 14443 times:

The Trent 8104 achieved 114lb of thrust on test, the nearest building to the test engine was shaking with the vibrations and the roof leaked for ages after. Shame an engine was not built for production after.

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25346 posts, RR: 22
Reply 14, posted (5 years 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 14351 times:



Quoting Imiakhtar (Reply 11):
Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 9):
Pardon the hyperbole, but they are happening too frequently. I believe Air France has lost two, Singapore has lost at least one, Air Canada dropped one in here a few weeks ago...

I seem to recall a ME carrier, either Emirates or Etihad also having issues with the GE90-115 when it entered service, resulting in multiple engine changes.

Qatar Airways had one fail last September 7 enroute from IAD to DOH, resulting in a diversion to Gander and an engine change. Following summary from the Transport Canada occurrence reporting site.

The Qatar Airways Boeing 777-300ER aircraft was operating as QTR052 from Washington, DC to Doha, Qatar at FL370. At 02:25 NDT, when approximately 175nm west of Gander, the crew declared a Mayday due to an engine failure (GE90-115B); they requested and were cleared descent to FL200 and a diversion to Gander. Clearance to dump fuel approximately 30nm N of Gander was requested and received. The aircraft landed without further incident at 03:16 NDT. The engine, serial number unknown, had failed in cruise flight. During an unsuccessful relight attempt, EGT limitations were exceeded. Subsequent inspection revealed tiny particles in the tailpipe and debris on chip detectors. The engine was removed and will be returned to the manufacturer for further examination.


User currently offlineImiakhtar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (5 years 6 months 19 hours ago) and read 14337 times:



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 14):

Qatar Airways had one fail last September 7 enroute from IAD to DOH, resulting in a diversion to Gander and an engine change. Following summary from the Transport Canada occurrence reporting site.

Thanks. I wasn't aware of that one. A quick google as per my previous post revealed it was EY experiencing problems:

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/171207/

Regards


User currently offlineJetlife2 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 221 posts, RR: 25
Reply 16, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 14014 times:



Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 7):
The latest report I've seen was through the end of 3Q '08.

Based on an average for the prior year, the GE90-115B total (all phases of flight) IFSD rate was .005 per 1000 engine hours.

That rate is 25% of the rate required for 180/207 min ETOPS and 50% of the rate required for ETOPS beyond 180/207 min.

While the gear box issue should to be corrected, ETOPS for the 777/GE90-115B is not at risk.

This was a balanced and accurate view.

Current rate is 0.004/1000 hrs. The post is accurate that ETOPS is not at risk. It isn't appropriate to comment on individual issues, as that information isn't public, but suffice to say that the issues referred to are being managed very aggressively; they are well in hand, and the fleet statistics reflect that.

And yes the -115B is still the most powerful by a long way!

Cheers


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19724 posts, RR: 58
Reply 17, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 13885 times:



Quoting Dispatchguy (Reply 10):

Under FAR 121, single-engine aircraft are not allowed, so there will always be a requirement for a twin engine aircraft.

FAR 121 is a rule and rules can be changed.

However, I agree that this rule is unlikely to change. Until an engine can be designed that essentially never fails (even if a large, frozen turkey flies into it), you'll always need at least two.

Back on topic, I will remind everyone that RR has had their own 777 issues of late, have they not?


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13130 posts, RR: 100
Reply 18, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 13839 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The GE-90-115 will 'rule the roost' in terms of thrust for a long time.

With the developments in CFRP, aerodynamics, etc., I really doubt a larger engine will be required before 2020.

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 4):
I don't expect Pratt to show up at the party, just as they didn't even propose a development for the 777-3ER.

Nitpick: Actually, Pratt did propose an engine. They went off to their *usually* loyal launch customers (Japan Airlines, ANA, Korean air, UAL, Northwest, etc.) After the PW4098 debacle... every single one of them said 'no thank you.' Without a launch customer, the proposal died on the UG terminals.

At that point, RR was developing a counter to the GE-90-115. They, and their customers, were LIVID that GE was granted an exclusive. However, time and performance heals all wounds and I cannot recall a single RR customer who was considering the RR engine for the 77W who didn't eventually buy the GE-90-115.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
There are some 400 GE90-11xB engines in operation every day and yet there have been but a handful of IFSs over a period of months.

 checkmark  Its something to pay attention to, but nothing to endanger the GE-90's reputation or ETOPS certification.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 13754 times:



Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 4):
I don't expect Pratt to show up at the party, just as they didn't even propose a development for the 777-3ER.

Right, RR did propose and I believe developed and Engine for the 77L 77W, but GE got the contract because they invested in the cost of the development of these aircraft and shared the financial burden with Boeing.

Pratt and Whitney is the big loser on the 777. They have the least amount of airframes with their engines in service on the 777's.

The only major Airlines I can think of that originally ordered 777's with Pratts are:

UA
JL
ANA
KE
and Asiana.

The most 777-200ER's and 777-300's I believe are RR, followed by GE-90's. (I think). Actually, I don't think there are any GE-90's on ANY 777-300 A versions.

Of course, ALL 77L and 77W have GE-90's.

As to the original poster's question:

The GE-90-115B is the most powerful, as I believe it has been clocked all the way up to 127,000lbs of thrust, but only certified up to 115,000lbs.

In all honesty, anything can be built if one has the resources and money to do so. I expect that fan diameters may increase a bit, and thrust to go up, especially as the 777 is tweaked for better performance and perhaps a 777 NG variant.

Twins are the future for most aircraft....and I think that is what everyone would like, even on an A380 sized aircraft, but right now, it's not available. Doesn't mean it can't be done.

I do have a question though: I know many airlines at first really wanted engine options on the 77L and 77W, especially AA throwing a fit about it.

I know that Boeing produces the nacelles for these engines, but say RR or Pratt wanted to get in on the deal, could they not produce the nacelles themselves and airlines buy the planes without engines and fairings and have RR or PW install them, or perhaps if they are already installed with GE-90's, they could sell those engines to current GE-90 fleet owners and replace them with RR or PW?

UAL


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 20, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 13740 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 18):
At that point, RR was developing a counter to the GE-90-115. They, and their customers, were LIVID that GE was granted an exclusive. However, time and performance heals all wounds and I cannot recall a single RR customer who was considering the RR engine for the 77W who didn't eventually buy the GE-90-115.

American Airlines comes to mind, but they are about it.

Then again, they wanted a lighter 777X for TATL ops and were willing to sacrifice range to get it, so even if the 777-200LR had RR power, they likely still would not have bought it.


User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 13735 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
Then again, they wanted a lighter 777X for TATL ops and were willing to sacrifice range to get it, so even if the 777-200LR had RR power, they likely still would not have bought it.

I think they were interested in the 773ER, which was the reason for the hissy fit, because they "claimed" that if they didn't get RR Trents as an option, they would threaten Boeing by going to the A346 for their needs. I don't think they were looking at the LR model at the time. And with their current routes, they don't need it, unless they want to start BOM service from ORD, or SYD/AKL/DXB/BOM/HKG service from DFW. They also might want the LR for MIA-JNB, but then again, it would still require at stop in CPT because of JNB altitude.

UAL


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 22, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 13614 times:



Quoting UAL747 (Reply 19):
I know that Boeing produces the nacelles for these engines

It was Boeing at the time they were designed...now it's Spirit Aerosystems (formerly Boeing Wichita).

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 19):
but say RR or Pratt wanted to get in on the deal, could they not produce the nacelles themselves and airlines buy the planes without engines and fairings and have RR or PW install them, or perhaps if they are already installed with GE-90's, they could sell those engines to current GE-90 fleet owners and replace them with RR or PW?

There's no way to buy the airplane without the engines/nacelles...it wouldn't conform to the type certificate, so there's no way for Boeing to give it an airworthiness certificate. Although I suppose that the airline could take delivery at PAE without that, then roll it over to Goodrich and do the mod there, then get the airworthiness cert themselves, but I'm not sure why Boeing would do that.

If you bought the full-up airplane, there's nothing that inherently prevents RR or PW from offering an STC to change the engines. However, the certification burden for that STC would be huge, and you'd have to have a customer that *reeeeeeallly* wanted the other engine to get them to pay for that.

Tom.


User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 13586 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 22):
f you bought the full-up airplane, there's nothing that inherently prevents RR or PW from offering an STC to change the engines. However, the certification burden for that STC would be huge, and you'd have to have a customer that *reeeeeeallly* wanted the other engine to get them to pay for that.

Right, but you would only need one certification for the aircraft, and the airlines who wanted different engines could share that burden, correct? Or does a certification have to be issued for EACH airplane and not simply the airframe and engine configuration for similar types?

UAL


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 24, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 13570 times:



Quoting UAL747 (Reply 23):
Right, but you would only need one certification for the aircraft, and the airlines who wanted different engines could share that burden, correct? Or does a certification have to be issued for EACH airplane and not simply the airframe and engine configuration for similar types?

The STC is a one-time thing...it would apply to all aircraft that met whatever the configuration requirements were of the STC. So yes, if a bunch of airlines wanted to share it they could do that. Each airplane would also need its own airworthiness certification but, provided the STC was certified, that's not any meainingful incremental cost. Airworthiness is preserved by the incorporation of certified modifications. The big cost is in certifying the STC.

Tom.


25 Lightsaber : There I disagree. Pratt was shocked how many RR customers protested to Boeing. SQ, BA, AA, and a few others (who made less noise). There were more ai
26 Stitch : Sorry. I thought the comment was "RR customers who did not eventually buy the GE90-11xB". My mistake. You are very much correct that many existing 77
27 Lightsaber : Maybe I misread your post. I'm shocked at the transformation. The original GE-90 had the worst reputation on the 777 (well... until the PW4098...), b
28 Stitch : Really. They spent some $2 billion on the original GE90, yet it was the slowest seller and while BA started with it, they dropped it for the Trents o
29 OldAeroGuy : Through the end of Feb '09, GE90-110B/115B sales were at least 1038 (spare engines wiil push the total higher) based on sales of: 773ER: 397 772LR: 4
30 AT : I know that the LRs and 300-ERs are exclusively GE, but what is the breakdown by engine type for the remaining 777 fleet? Can someone provide numbers
31 Viscount724 : According to Boeing orders/deliveries data: 777-200:.......RR 16, GE 9, PW 63 777-200ER:..RR 179, GE 167, PW 88 777-300:.......RR 42, GE none, PW 18
32 AT : interesting-- for the -200A models, the PW is by far the most prevalent, but that reverses for the -200ER... Also didn't realize there were only 60 7
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Is The GE 90-115B Still The Most Powerful?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Speed Of Air Out Of The GE-90-115's Back End posted Sun Sep 10 2006 01:47:24 by UAL747
What Is The Fan Diameter Of The GE F101 posted Wed Dec 28 2005 23:22:44 by 747400sp
The GE-90 posted Fri Dec 12 2003 22:04:50 by Thrust
757 Vs. MD-90 For The Takeoff Crown? posted Sun Sep 21 2008 17:39:49 by EA772LR
What Is The Fan Diamiter Of The JT-3 Turbo Fan posted Thu Mar 23 2006 23:17:19 by 747400sp
Is The Cowling On All The Way? posted Mon Jun 20 2005 19:31:35 by Gener8tion
What Is This Green Coating On The Aircraft? posted Thu Feb 24 2005 22:41:24 by Bio15
What Is The Thing Attached To The Front Gear? posted Wed Jan 12 2005 23:24:54 by Erj145lr
What Is This Black Spot On The Tail? posted Tue May 27 2003 03:43:21 by BR715-A1-30
What Is This On Top Of The MCP (Red Led Display) posted Wed Apr 16 2003 04:01:18 by Rohan737
Is The 787 More Quiet Than The A380 Both RR And GE posted Sun Aug 1 2010 20:59:53 by Aeroflot001
Plan To Power The Second AN 225 With GE 90? posted Sun Mar 14 2010 19:41:57 by 747400sp
Is The CF-6 Related To The GE-4 posted Mon Feb 8 2010 18:57:17 by 747400sp
Which T/R Is The Most Efficient? posted Tue Jan 19 2010 18:51:19 by C5LOAD
Tid-bit On The 777 GE 90 Engine posted Thu Mar 5 2009 18:07:48 by Richiemo
Speed Of Air Out Of The GE-90-115's Back End posted Sun Sep 10 2006 01:47:24 by UAL747
What Is The Fan Diameter Of The GE F101 posted Wed Dec 28 2005 23:22:44 by 747400sp
The GE-90 posted Fri Dec 12 2003 22:04:50 by Thrust
Is The A380-900 A "push-button" Project posted Fri Jan 7 2011 13:07:11 by A380900
What Is The Thickness Of An Asphalt Runway? posted Tue Nov 16 2010 04:20:34 by mehairy7

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format